What evidence do you have that Behe believes populations are waiting for mutations?
Have you read Edge of Evolution? Hint: page 111. Did it even occur to you to look at what Behe has written about evolution before you spammed the forum?
If you can be bothered to read anything at all, try this critique of Behe’s crap, then if you aren’t still too busy, have a look at Behe’s “response.” (It’s preposterous but more to the point, it’s clearly about waiting time.)
2 Likes
His writing, of course.
2 Likes
John, given the large number of times that Bill has brought up “waiting times”, including in a thread explicitly discussing one of Behe’s books, and his fannish devotion to Michael Behe more generally, what do you think the chances are that the following question is a genuine request for information, rather than simply trolling?
1 Like
So now we’re just pretending that creationists never made an argument once it’s proven to be false? How Orwellian.
4 Likes
Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 1020 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. Generally, when the results of a simple model disagree with observational data, it is an indication that the model is inadequate. Furthermore, DURRETT and SCHMIDT (2008) err in several ways in applying their model to the PfCRT data
They are claiming that the waiting times Michael is estimating with the empirical data he used are unrealistically long.
Is it clear to you they are not using oranges to make a comparison to apples?
Have you looked at Behe’s model for waiting times that is a population genetics model?
It’s neither. It’s an attempt to confound you by making some kind of clever point that he is incapable of expressing clearly. But he truly believes he has a point to make. He isn’t trolling, he’s just massively incompetent.
This is how you responded to my post?! [Narrator: he didn’t respond to my post. His post quotes someone else.]
Here’s the conversation:
- You ask an inane and/or transparently dishonest question in this post.
- I answer that question in my followup. I do this knowing that you lie regularly on the forum and that you are likely to haul out a red herring.
- You respond to that post with a desperate redirection.
Your behavior is despicable. You lie regularly. But there’s a bright side; I think you and I agree on at least two things that are relevant to this forum.
- You seem to believe that the Christian god is so pathetic and so obviously disreputable that he needs you to fabricate and manipulate and misdirect and generally behave with shameless dishonesty. On this we agree: only lies can help him.
- You seem intent on lying on the forum, believing that this will accomplish something good. On this we agree: Christians who defy the norms of simple integrity can accomplish the further erosion of the credibility of a religion that does more harm – far far more harm – than good.
1 Like
Any idea of what this point might be, even approximately? Because I can’t see one here.
No, but then again, neither does he.
3 Likes
When it comes to Bill there is no reason to ponder or even care.
2 Likes
There are people who are making the claim that there is no waiting time problem.
The real debate is how long it is and how much it limits evolution.
This is evident from the papers that were cited here and the two models from Lynch and Behe we have discussed in the past.
Then I don’t feel bad at being unable to believe that this unknown, and apparently unknowable, point ever existed, even in the fetid swamp of Bill’s mind. This inability leaves me believing that Bill was merely “feigning ignorance” of Behe’s belief in waiting times, in an attempt to derail the conversation – i.e. that he was trolling.
1 Like
What I am convinced of now that no one that is criticising Behe understands either side of the arguments and the implications for the single origin model.
No, I’m pointing out that there is no waiting, period. Populations aren’t waiting, in any sense of the word, for new mutations. Existing polymorphism exceeds new mutations by a million-fold.
1 Like
As well as being in no way related to the quote of me that it was purporting to be a “reply” to, this comment is incoherent, in that the people who are on the other “side of the arguments” from Behe are “criticising” him, and Bill is therefore claiming that they don’t understand their own arguments.
A more coherent view would be that Bill himself “understands [n]either side of the arguments”, including the incoherent arguments he himself is providing.
1 Like
Considering that Behe entirely accepts the “single origin model”, you might want to reconsider who does and doesn’t understand the implications.
3 Likes
What do you think he means by “accepting the single origin model”?
I agree they are not waiting for mutations as they already exist. They are waiting for mutations that already exist or new ones to become fixed in the population.
What do you think he means? This is a ridiculous conversation.
2 Likes
He means he choses not to debate common descent and instead focuses on design. He believes this is the best argument for explaining the differences. What he means by accepting common descent and what you mean may be very different.
Paul Nelson, who Mike works with, does not accept the single origin model and I agree with Paul that this model is probably wrong and should be re examined.